I did this in maybe 20 minutes? That's good.
Stages in Decision-Making. Hastie et al. Stages & Influence on Decision-Making.
Jury stages are thought to go through these stages.
Orientation
period Relaxed and open to discussions.
Set the agenda.
Raise questions and explore facts.
Different opinions arise.
Open
confrontation Fierce debate.
Focus on detail.
Explore different interpretations.
Pressure on the minority to conform.
Support for the group decision is established.
Reconciliation Attempts to smooth over conflicts.
Tension released through humour.
They are applying findings from social-psychological research of group dynamics to the jury here. The problem is that actual juries cannot be studied, so it is an assumption that these processes apply.
Majority Influence. Asch. The Power of Majority Influence & Conformity.
To investigate the effects of conformity to a majority when the task is unambiguous.
Laboratory experiment.
Asch arranged for a naive participant to be asked a question to which several stooges had already given the wrong answer (which line matches line X?). Asch was interested to see whether people will conform, even in a crystal-clear decision.
Individuals conformed one out of three occasions. This finding of approximately 32% of conformity is a robust until one stooge in the group is instructed to disrupt the conformality, which brings it down to about 5%. Majorities larger than 3 make very little difference to the conformity effect. This may be because three is enough to create a group norm.
We might conform due to two reasons. The need to belong to a group and the need to be right.
The need is thought to be part of the socialisation process, which particularly influences those with poor self esteem who are insecure about their own worth and opinions.
The need to be right arises when any ambiguous stimulus and so it is more likely that the need to belong is prevalent.
In a jury, the task is more complex and an individual may be far more influenced by the need to make the right decision and give the correct verdict for the evidence.
Nature or nurture.
Mainly situational explanation side of debate.
Mainly reductionism side of debate.
Mainly determinism side of debate.
Qualitative and quantitative data.
Minority Influence. Memeth & Wachtler. Investigation of the Influence of Percieved Autonomy on Minority Influence.
A laboratory experiment as a mock trial.
Groups of five participants, one of which is a stooge, drawn from an adult sample of students.
Random and self selected sample.
The group had to decide on the amount of compensation due for a victim of an injury. After hearing facts, everyone makes an individual verdict, and are then taken into a room with two seats on either side of a table, plus a seat at the head of the table.
In one group, everyone chooses where they sit, and in the other, the participants are allocated a seat.
The stooge tried to get the compensation to be $3,000 instead of the $10,000 - $25,000 everyone else decides on.
When the stooge chooses where he sits, he exertes an influence and is seen as consistent and percieved as an autonomous.
When the experimenter chooses the seat, the stooge has very little influence on the others.
When the stooge has been influential, this continues into a second case.
When he sits at the head of the table, he is seen as more consistent and confident.
Nature or nurture.
Mainly situational explanation side of debate.
Mainly reductionism side of debate.
Determinism side of debate.
Mainly qualitative data.